Grant application information

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks

Chair Hargreaves called the May 24, 2006 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public. Chair Hargreaves asked staff to take roll call. A quorum was present with 5 members in attendance.

II. Old Business

Ms. Hargreaves asked if any members were able to attend any ECHO function activities in the last 2 weeks.

Mr. Wiles said that he had not been able to attend any activities these past weeks but plans to attend the Gamble Place event on the 24th.
Chair Hargreaves asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes from the May 10th meeting. Mr. Wiles made the motion to approve the minutes which were seconded and unanimously approved.

III. Staff Report

Chair Hargreaves said to move to the Staff Report and asked Ms. Hodge to brief the board. Ms. Hodge said that the County Council had not yet responded to the ECHO Boards request to have a meeting to discuss the various items that were brought to their attention in a memo sent to them after the previous ECHO Board meeting. A small discussion ensued regarding the desire of the ECHO Board to meet with the Council members with the realization that the Council members are extremely busy.

Ms. Hodge mentioned the continued work on the Draft Application Guide with the latest revision being sent to the Board members for their review prior to today’s meeting. Chair Hargreaves briefly elaborated to the attending visitors that work has been diligently ongoing to improve the application and review process for the ECHO applicants, ECHO Board members, and ultimately, the County Council.

Ms. Hodge said that there are a few changes to the copy on the Board members desks from the one that they were previously sent beginning with the wording on page 8 of the Guide. The Board members reviewed the re-written section and Mr. Wiles said that he likes the way it now reads which is better than the previous wording. The consensus of the Board was that this change is “fine.”

Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge if the visitors in the chamber also had a copy of the revised Application Guide. Yes, was the answer. Ms. Hargreaves continued by telling the attendees in the chamber that the Board welcomed questions and that there will be time devoted to them asking the questions at the end of the meeting.

Ms. Hodge continued by saying the next wording change is on page 13. Ms. Hodge said that this is the subject page that the Board members had previously stated about which they wanted to have a significant amount of discussion. She suggested that the Board skip over this for now and come back to it after the rest of the document has been reviewed. The board members decided that they might as well tackle the section now so Ms. Hargreaves asked the Board to look at the changes at the top of the page and asked Ms. Hodge to begin her presentation of the subject matter.

Ms. Hodge said that this had been previously discussed and she had asked the Board members to send her a list of bullets regarding each individual’s specific points that they wanted to see covered by the applicants. Ms. Hodge said that she had received a list from Mr. Graven regarding this issue. Ms. Hodge said that if the wording on this page can be resolved, this will substantially help her in the preparation of the materials she will be handing out in the workshop.

Referencing the list of items that Mr. Graven had supplied, Ms. Hodge stated that once a list of items desired is included, there needs to be definitions for what these words mean to the applicants. Ms. Hodge pointed out that this definition of terms was already accomplished for many of the words in the application to minimize any ambiguity. As an example, she stated that she was not as familiar with the definitions of words such as “constructability” and “site space planning” that Mr. Graven had submitted. She continued by saying, “…if she was a grant writer, what would those terms mean to me.”

Mr. Graven understood the potential uncertainty and said that he will add definitions to the terms and send them to Ms. Hodge. Ms. Hodge continued by saying she is more concerned in having this information for the mandatory workshops than she was for the Boards scoring page of the Application Guide.

Chair Hargreaves understood why Ms. Hodge suggested in tabling this subject until after we had completed the rest of the Guide as this area is quite contentious and possibly more could be accomplished in completing the Guide. She asked the Board members if they would like to table the discussion on this page or would they like to continue on. Mr. Wiles said that unless there was some item of discussion coming up later that is relevant with this section, he would like to continue on. Ms. Hargreaves said that she personally would like to continue with the discussion of this section.

Ms. Hodge pointed out that several of the board members, who could not be in attendance today, had specific concerns about the verbiage used in this section. Ms. Hargreaves said that since this is a subject for much debate, she would like to table it until possibly the next meeting when more of the concerned Board members may be attending. Mr. Wiles voiced his agreement with her decision. Ms. Hargreaves asked the rest of the Board members if they all agreed with this decision which they all did.

Ms. Hodge said that the next item for review is on page 27. Mr. Wiles asked if there was something to be decided on page 15; however, he was told that the change marks in the document referred to the formatting which would be corrected once all the changes had been accepted.

Chair Hargreaves said that Ms. Hodge had crafted the new language on page 27 based upon the discussions that had occurred in previous meetings. Ms. Hodge said that much of the change came about from the addition of a project management flow chart shown on the next page which was patterned from an example that Mr. Graven had submitted to her after the last Board meeting. After a brief moment while the Board members refreshed their memory on this material, Mr. Wiles said that he felt the statements are very clear and will be extremely helpful. Ms. Hodge said that when the lists of items of concern are received from each of the Board members, each of the items can be placed inside the appropriate scored sections which should be very helpful in describing what information is desired.

Ms. Hargreaves next asked the question that if this information is requested in the various parts of the Application, in what format are we going to expect to receive the information; a word form, a visual site plan, a chart describing the points, etc. As an example, Ms. Hargreaves used the first item from the list in 2.2.1) a. - physical description, “…what currently exists on the site….” Would this be a picture of what is there, a site plan of the current status, a word description of the existing site…. She continued by saying that if she was a grant writer reading this, what format are we asking for this information? We are not specifying this so far.

Ms. Hodge said that maybe we want to add a statement onto this saying that the method used to portray this information should coincide with the drawings and design submitted in section 2.4 which should correspond with the budget information in section 3. Ms. Hargreaves said that they usually don’t submit the “as is” site plan with the application to which Ms. Hodge replied that she strongly suggests to applicants that they do just that.

Ms. Hargreaves then asked Mr. Graven on how he would best see the submission of this information that would most easily make it clear to the Board without costing the applicant a great deal of time and energy. Mr. Graven responded that most engineers like to check boxes; therefore, if we had some sort of check list of items that we expected, it would be black and white for the applicant; however, he is concerned that this could add another layer to the process that would make us look like a review agency. Therefore, he doesn’t know what implication there would be to have a check list for any site plan. Ms. Hodge said that if there were 50 boxes to check, an applicant might just check one of them. She continued on saying that the “as is” information is important since without it, the applicant can (for example) reduce the number of available parking spaces from 40 to 20 but without the needed information, there is no way to tell this.

Mr. Wiles said that he likes them describing the layout in words so he can compare this with the drawings to make sure the two descriptions agree with one another. In some cases, the city code might increase the required number of parking spots. The description of the facility would state that they had (for example) 8 parking spots and now they will have 12. Another example he cited was with a ball field and a specified number of parking spots. If they increased the number of ball fields in the park, how many more parking spaces would they need to accommodate the additional people that would come? He stated that he envisioned a word description backed up by the drawings when he first read this section of the Application Guide.

Ms. Seaman said that in many cases, the applicants would not know the exact statute requirements for various aspects of the project until they applied to the appropriate authorities; therefore, she would like to see the word approximate used when asking for this description. For example, an applicant could go to the city with plans to build a 9300 sq. ft. building but the city could come back with right-of-ways, set backs, etc. to where they might only be able to build a 9200 sq. ft. building. She doesn’t believe it is fair to require exactness at this point. She said that she would be much more comfortable if the applicant could say they are going to build a building of approximately 9000 sq. ft. Mr. Wiles agreed by saying that the zoning authority for the locality would be the one to specify the minimum number of parking spaces for a project.

Mr. Graven stated that the applicants are not coming to the Board for approximately a certain amount of money; they are coming for an exact amount. He expects them to have done their homework prior to coming before the Board. Mr. Grigat pointed out that many of these groups don’t have the money to do this type of in-depth discovery prior to requesting the grant. Mr. Wiles said that in many cases, the applicant won’t know the extent of the project until they know the amount of money they will have available to work on the project.

Mr. Greg Bartholomew from the City of South Daytona, a visitor in the chamber, asked if he could make a comment at this time. Chair Hargreaves agreed to his request. He stated that they had just finished an ECHO Grant project grand opening at Reed Canal Park which Mr. Sixma and several County Council members had attended.

He stated that he agrees with Ms. Seaman. They put specific items in the contract and, at the end of the construction, they have to “square up” with their contractor. He said that when you lay out a trail or a building on a CAD system, the end result may not be exactly what was laid out. The facility may take a little more space causing a parking space to be eliminated or the trail may end up being a little shorter than was originally proposed.

Mr. Bartholomew said that Ms. Hodge is extremely scrupulous regarding the issuance of ECHO funds. He cited an example where the plan may have been for 3,000 feet of trail and only 2,800 feet was built. (At this time, Ms. Hodge broke in and said, “You cut 900 feet of trail!” There was fitting laughter from all present.) Mr. Bartholomew continued by saying it is for this reason that there should be some flexibility on the projects. He said that the requirement could be for a map showing the existing facility in one color, the new construction in another color and a bulleted list regarding the major points of the project. He would much prefer this over writing a paragraph style statement which could get both lengthy and complicated. Lastly, he stated that this is a matching Grant but an organization does not want to spend $200,000 on a plan before they know they have the money to accomplish the plan.

Ms. Hargreaves said that typically, the Board sees a plat or an aerial photograph of a piece of land showing what currently exists. They next see the conception of what the applicants plan is to enhance this piece of property by its placement on the plat. This usually includes the plan for parking spaces, ball fields, landscaping, etc., along with a legend describing these various proposed improvements.

Ms. Hodge stated that what this section is trying to describe is the construction sequence while the drawings are in section 2.4. Ms. Hodge would recommend blending the two charts into one chart at this time. She wants to leave the format unchanged as the State Grant requires the information in that format. One action the Board has been trying to do is to make our grant look like the States such that, with minimal work, the applicant can use much of this application to go to the State and ask them for a grant. She suggested that the Board blend into the current document what has been suggested for this year (2006 / 2007) and in the following year (2007 / 2008), see what can be removed. Ms. Hodge then told the group that the requested information for the drawings would best be incorporated into section 2.4 with the rest of the drawing information.

Mr. Wiles said that as early as last year, he had liked the idea of blending the 2 forms of information and that he prefers the bullet points to paragraph style descriptions because it is easier to read and to comprehend. Ms. Hagstrom said that brevity is clarity which is what they are all looking for.

Ms. Hodge reviewed what was said by saying that what the Board is looking for is a bulleted list of what is there now and what is changing. Ms. Hargreaves asked if there were any other comments on section 1A. Everyone was satisfied with what had transpired, so Chair Hargreaves stated that with the acceptance from all on these changes; let’s move on to section 1B.

Ms. Hargreaves focused the Boards attention to Tab 2.2, section 1B. Ms. Hodge pointed out the changes that had been made to the flow chart. She additionally stated that a few additional changes will yet be made such as: the Jan – Mar and Apr – Sep 07 columns will be joined as one since only one activity occurs in this example during the combined period. Also, Ms. Hodge pointed out that the columns are labeled with specific dates and not month 1, month 2 or quarter 1, quarter 2, etc. as the months and quarters only provide relative times but provide no information to build upon.

Mr. Wiles said that this project flow chart is good as it ties back into the example of the required format for a timeline on the previous page. Mr. Grigat questioned whether the applicants should possibly be talking to some construction people ahead of time to acquire a relative timeframe and cost for the various phases of the potential project. Mr. Graven said that if the potential contract would be from a City or the County that has to go out to bid, they could not give it to a contractor asking for their ideas and estimates. He said that any time there is a site plan developed, there will be an architectural and engineering component and that his company does engineering and construction cost estimates every day. He continued by saying that he could not imagine how the applicant could ask for a grant without having done that. He added that he would question the validity of any project presented where the applicant had not involved an architectural and engineering firm for the preliminary cost estimates.

Mr. Wiles concurred by asking how an applicant can come to the ECHO board asking for $500,000 when they really don’t know what the project will cost to complete. He said he would not feel comfortable signing off on $500,000 without this preliminary work. Ms. Hagstrom then stated that the Board has done “just that” many times in the past. Mr. Grigat stated that the applicants have half of the funds set aside already and couldn’t they use some of those monies for this investigation. Ms. Hodge said that they have to do this (the preliminary rudimentary drawings) but that this cannot count towards the grant, if awarded as they are “soft costs.”

Mr. Grigat mentioned that many changes have often occurred from the time the grant was awarded to when the project was completed. Ms. Hodge responded that many of the times, these changes are caused by “public outcry.” For example, in South Daytona, the home owners did not want the trail running directly behind their homes so that portion of the trail was eliminated. Sometimes the design changes because of budget but, in her experience, most of the time it is due to public dissatisfaction with the proposed plan.

Mr. Wiles said that several times in the past, the applicants have found themselves with insufficient funds to complete the project because they failed to know that a wall they were going to remove was a load bearing wall, etc. He then questioned if the Board would have rated a project the same if they had known the cost would be (for example) $750,000 instead of $500,000? Ms. Hodge responded that this is the type of problem we have seen, especially with small non-profits who don’t have the money to spend for preliminary plans if they are not going to receive the grant(s) necessary to actually work the project. She added that historically, this type of unknown problem has primarily occurred with historical restorations. Ms. Hargreaves said that this type of occurrence does happen with historical restorations which the state has acknowledged; however, it still is worthwhile to pursue this type of activity for the community.

Ms. Hargreaves asked the rest of the Board members what they felt regarding the time line chart. Ms. Hodge said that with the inclusion of the description of the expenditures, she did not see the necessity for a chart as listed in 2.2.1 (3). Ms. Hargreaves said that she agrees since the money has already been allocated. Mr. Wiles said that he believed having both charts allows the applicants and the Board to review where they are relating to their proposed schedule. Ms. Hodge said that she would prefer to see only one chart to minimize the potential problems of having differing timelines; therefore, she suggested that they have only one chart like the one on 2.2.1(b) but include the monies on this chart as well as the timelines.

Ms. Hargreaves said that this would combine the best of both of the charts. Ms. Seaman added the thought that the money part of the diagram is not going to be a controlling factor since a portion of a project is going to cost “whatever it costs.” Furthermore, if the costs are more or less than originally planned, this isn’t going to change the amount of the grant to which all agreed. Mr. Wiles said that the only time they would probably use this is if the project was running over in time or expense. He said that he really feels comfortable with the proposed combined chart. Mr. Grigat added that with the expertise of members of the Board, the Board would recognize the under or over-estimate of costs associated with a specific activity and could bring attention to the issue. Chair Hargreaves summed up the discussion by saying that the two charts would be combined; meaning that with the color flow chart, there would be projected dollar expenditure amounts for the tasks.

Chair Hargreaves asked all to look at item 2.3 on page 28. Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge as to what kind of format she was looking for as a response; i.e., a bullet format, paragraph format, etc. Ms. Hodge responded by saying that it asks for a description; therefore, she expects a paragraph format. Regarding future phases of a project, this will be a visionary explanation of what could possibly transpire. She continued by saying that for those applicants in the past that filled out this section, they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. The changes were agreed to as is.

Chair Hargreaves said that we need to back up to item 2.2 (6) goals. This section proved difficult for the applicants and really added nothing to the content of the application; therefore, it was deleted. After a brief discussion, it was agreed upon by the Board members.
The Board next looked at item 2.4 which pertains to the applicants’ submission of scaled drawings relative to the existing facility. Specific mention was made of the requirement of the drawings to show current conditions and changes that will be made as the project is completed.

Mr. Graven suggested the addition of some verbiage more specifically describing what is desired from the applicant. Ms. Seaman suggested that all read the addition on the following page which appears to cover the concern Mr. Graven had. Mr. Graven said that what he desires is for the applicant to show all of the proposed work and clearly show what exists and what is proposed.

Mr. Wiles said that on the 2 drawings we are discussing – the initial drawing showing what exists before the project and the second that shows what exists upon completion of the project – would the second drawing show just the additions to the site or would it show both the old and new facilities? Mr. Wiles said that without the final drawing showing all facilities, you cannot tell if something was demolished as part of the project. Ms. Hargreaves said that is why she likes to see two drawings – a before and an after.

Ms. Hodge summed up what was being asked for by stating she understands the Boards desire for two scaled drawings – the first showing existing sites before the start of the project and the second showing all that is present at the completion of the project. Ms. Hargreaves added that what she would really like, which would make it easy for everyone, is for the first one to be on acetate so you could overlay the before and after drawings upon each other. All agreed but felt that this would prove difficult for some of the applicants. Ms. Hodge said that there could be a third drawing which would show what the completed facility would be after proposed future phases of the project. There is also a fourth drawing which is the street locator as described in 2.4 2). This locator map will be the first of the three minimum drawings required (locator drawing, existing facilities drawing, and an after project completion drawing). In addition, if there are further future plans for additional improvements after completion of the proposed project, this would be the fourth drawing.

Mr. Graven summed up what the Board is wanting – a locator drawing, an existing structure drawing, and a drawing depicting the facility upon completion of the proposed project. Ms. Hodge asked if the Board was interested in elevation drawings. Mr. Graven stated that for architectural projects, he would definitely want to see the elevation drawing. Ms. Hargreaves stated that we should remind the applicants that they must include a legend on the drawings to assist in identifying specific parts of the project. She said that in the past, we have seen a school for children that did not have adequate school bus access to the facility. Ms. Hodge said that is why she specifically asks for items such as the number of parking spaces. Ms. Hargreaves commented that she isn’t that concerned about specific numbers of parking spaces – just an approximate number - as zoning would pretty much control that facet of the project. Mr. Wiles said that what we should see is the entrance and exit to the proposed facility, the general parking area, and where the vehicles would be able to turn around; i.e., a typically site plan.

Ms. Hodge concluded by saying she understands what the Board is asking for and she will craft the paragraph to reflect this and bring it back to the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Greg Bartholomew from the City of S. Daytona (a visitor to the meeting) said he has a brief comment to which Chair Hargreaves said to come up to the lectern. Mr. Bartholomew suggested that on 2.4 1), the word “professional” be added to the first sentence. With this, the applicants would be delivering quality drawings that will be meaningful to all. He said that people understand the word “professional” and will submit accordingly. He then questioned why the Board was asking for a drawing that includes potential future additions beyond what is in the Grant application. Ms. Hodge responded that this only strengthens the applicants’ position. She additionally stated that many times in Tab 5, the applicant has described the desired end result of the projects impact on the community after all planned phases of the project and not the result of just the proposed project of the current application.

Lastly, Mr. Bartholomew said that he was very much in favor of the new proposed timeline that will include the cost of the specific project item. He mentioned that the boxes in the previous format could not use number twelve (12) font and fit $20,000 inside of the box.

Moving on to Tab 3, an initial comment was made that the page was almost all red (which signifies changes). Ms. Hodge stated that most of the changes related to font style and the other changes were just a rewording of the existing paragraphs with no change in meaning. Previously, land values had been placed in the chart in section B. This had caused confusion regarding the amount of match dollars and where these funds were going to be used. Land values will no longer be part of section B of this chart. Ms. Hargreaves said that she personally felt more comfortable with the new language in this section.

Ms. Hodge said that there was one point she wanted to bring up which concerned contractors fees. In some of the applications, they have allocated dollars to paying for a contractor (with 50% matching funds from ECHO). In some cases, after the ECHO award has been granted, they decide to be their own contractor. This does have value but should the City / County / non-profit be given actual funds as they would if they had hired an outside contractor? The way this now reads is that if the applicant acts as their own contractor, they can use 100% of the contractor expense as match; however, they will not be reimbursed with actual cash. Mr. Wiles asked if the people acting as their own contractor were licensed to be a contractor. Ms. Seaman said that if they were the owner, they could operate as a contractor without a contractor license. Mr. Wiles went on to say that he didn’t see anything wrong with paying the institutions with money, as was previously done, as this effort could possibly take longer than when using an outside contractor and the people assigned to do this work are not available to perform other tasks.

Ms. Hargreaves said that she has a contractor license and she has a hard time saying that we are going to allow someone who has budgeted for a contractor now become their won contractor with no experience and receive ECHO funds. She stated that she would not be her own contractor on a project. She further stated that we have an obligation to the people of this County and the obligation to the tax payers of this County. She asked if we are going to let the applicant by without full architectural drawings, and let them by with something else, and now we are going to let them by if they are going to be their own contractor too. She equated this to allowing someone to go out and spend a million dollars with just a sketch on a napkin and “go for it!”

When the subject of the zoning and planning departments of the County and the Cities overseeing the project to ensure that the project was being properly planned and constructed, a discussion ensued regarding the diligence of this oversight. Ms. Seaman stated that she ran the County department for four years and that she knows the people in the County and the Cities take their job very seriously. Ms. Hargreaves questioned the thoroughness of these organizations and Ms. Seaman reiterated her belief that these organizations perform their jobs with great diligence.

Mr. Wiles said that the real issue here is not whether an owner can be their own contractor but whether we will reimburse them with cash for their time spent. He recommended that we change the reading to what it now is to where they will be able to use 100% of the amount as match but they will not be paid 50% of the contractor fee when they are doing their own contracting. Ms. Hodge agreed saying that it is easy to reimburse a project for lumber they have purchased for which they have a paid invoice but it would not be easy to pay monies for contracting when it is accomplished by personnel who already work for the entity. It was agreed to change the wording to what is now stated and revisit the issue next year if necessary.

Moving on to page 31, the item was Lease / Land Value. Change accepted.
Page 32 has a paragraph – 3.1 5) – that references the total project value when the project of the application is only a part of the total project. This section allows (but does not require) the applicant to submit a budget that will include all future phases as envisioned by the applicant. This paragraph cautions the applicant to make sure that the budget information for this project application is segregated from and does not conflict with that of the total project.

There was some confusion regarding the flow of section 3.1. Because of the reduced size of the font (to allow for correction statements), the sequence appears wrong. Ms. Hodge pointed out that once the corrections are omitted, the font will increase and the page breaks will again make sense. Regarding 3.1 5), Ms. Hodge will look at this to see if a better placement or numbering convention is possible that might cause less confusion.

Mr. Graven asked if the section on page 36 – Site Construction (Div. 2) MATCH AND/OR ECHO means that ECHO will not fund off beach parking for the County or does it mean that they might fund 100% of the cost of the off beach parking. Ms. Seaman said that it is the position of the Council to fund and build off beach parking when they see it to be necessary.

Ms. Seaman said that she understand the point of this paragraph. Ms. Hodge explained that in the past, there had been some confusion as to what ECHO would pay for. Nowhere in the application guide did it say that parking surfaces would be paid for with ECHO funds. Historically, this has been the position of the Board. However, part of the resolution mandate for ECHO funding is off beach parking. Ms. Hargreaves suggested rewording this language so that it matches the resolution.

Ms. Seaman said that the confusion seems to relate to the fact that ECHO would not pay for blacktop on an existing parking area. Ms. Seaman said that the County or the Cities could build off beach parking; however, Daytona Beach is considering the building of a parking garage that could be used for off beach parking. Would the Board feel that this would qualify for ECHO funding? Ms. Hagstrom asked the question back to Ms. Seaman looking to Ms. Seaman for a legal answer.

Mr. Wiles said that barring any legal aspects, he does not want to fund any project that has a commercial side to it. Additionally, he also feels, like Ms. Hargreaves, that the ECHO funds would go further for the citizens of Volusia County in the construction of facilities targeted at the areas ECHO stands for. Ms. Hargreaves said that we have to be cautious regarding this because the ECHO resolution specifically does mention funding for off beach parking; therefore, if the project meets the criteria of the grant process, we do need to consider the project. When Ms. Hargreaves asked if the seventy-five percent could be taken out as ECHO projects require a fifty-fifty match, Ms. Hodge said that she would like Ms. Seaman to look at this for a legal perspective and recommend to the Board what this section should contain. Agreed!
Ms. Hodge said that page 37 reiterates the fact that items purchased using MATCH or ECHO funds must be for public use (not internal office use).

Mr. Graven noted that on page 36 – Division 2 – it says that match may include “…irrigation systems…;” however, on page 37 – Division 15 – it says, “ECHO shall not fund exterior irrigation systems….” He also questioned why we would fund landscaping but not fund the irrigation to keep it alive. Ms. Hodge explained that if the irrigation system is a necessary part of the primary function of the project; i.e., an irrigation system for an educational garden or for an athletic field, then it is considered allowable. Mr. Wiles re-asked the question pertaining to funding landscaping but not funding the irrigation to keep it alive. Ms. Hargreaves said that during the inception of the ECHO Board, it was stated during a discussion that in many places, landscaping is a requirement to receive a Certificate of Occupancy whereas irrigation is not. Mr. Graven stated that he thought we paid for utilities but the response was that utility expenses could be used for MATCH but not for ECHO funds.

Ms. Hodge requested that the Board suspend reviewing the rest of the Application Guide as she has some questions that have been posed that require input from the Board members. This was agreed upon by the Board.

IV. New Business

Ms. Hodge said she had a phone call from the Volusia Anthropological Society. They want to save and protect the sugar mills that are on State land and would like to have a study funded by ECHO. They were told that ECHO doesn’t pay for studies; however, if the Board allowed, it could be used for MATCH. The Society’s next question was; if the study becomes an integral part of a major project that includes construction, can it be partially funded by ECHO? Ms. Hodge continued by saying she knows we do pay for an Environmental Level I study. She said she didn’t know enough about the particular study to see what it is that they will be doing.
Mr. Graven asked if they would be willing to write a letter explaining what they propose to do? Ms. Hagstrom cautioned about what would be allowed to be done by the Board. Ms. Hodge asked Ms. Seaman if this would be OK to ask them. Ms. Seaman said the answer is twofold. They can ask Ms. Hodge about a plan that they have; however, it has been the history of this Board to not fund “soft costs.” They have, however, allowed soft costs to become MATCH.

Ms. Hargreaves said that when we look at any project that is going to be a restoration program, there are always soft costs on the front end which is typically done by a contractor or a historian. What we are looking at is a restoration – stabilization project which is definitely within our purview. The land issue has already been solved. If we look at this as the soft cost being part of the application, ending in stabilization with some restoration, it would seem that within our guidelines, we could use these soft costs as MATCH.

Ms. Hodge said that they are actually looking for funding for the soft costs. Mr. Wiles asked Ms. Hodge if she was saying they wanted the soft costs funded up front. Ms. Hargreaves stated that these Anthropologists are very intelligent people and will not bring a false project to this group. Mr. Wiles said that if they are of that caliber, they need to go into the field where there are many people that will help fund this type of study. Ms. Hargreaves, along with Mr. Wiles, said that this could only potentially be used for MATCH under the right circumstances where the study leads to a restoration or a stabilization project.

Ms. Hodge stated that they really want to do this project; however, they do not feel they are capable of going out and raising funds. Mr. Wiles said that even if they had the funds for the study, they would still have to go out and raise the fifty percent matching funds before they would be granted ECHO funds.

Mr. Grigat asked how much money they are asking for to which Ms. Hodge responded that it doesn’t even meet the ECHO Board minimum amount and that they need about six thousand dollars for the study. Ms. Hodge said that she hopes that these monies can at least be used as MATCH to which Mr. Wiles and Ms. Hagstrom agreed that this is something that they have done before under the proper circumstances.

Ms. Hagstrom mentioned to the group that there are only a few pages left with red on them for review and she wondered if it was possible for everyone to stick around a few more minutes so the review could be completed. Ms. Hargreaves said that she unfortunately had another meeting that she had to attend and that she could not stay; however, she could turn the gavel over to Ms. Hagstrom. This decision was not acceptable as there would not be a quorum.

Chair Hargreaves asked if there were any questions or statements from the public in attendance. Mr. Bartholomew from South Daytona responded saying he had a few concluding points he would like to make. He referenced a point in the budget where items such as concrete and materials are listed. He said they currently break down the costs into the various categories listed on page 33. He questioned whether they could break things down by built item; i.e., a pavilion is made up of wood, concrete, and other materials. He said that it is very difficult to break down the percentage of costs of materials for each built item. Ms. Hodge responded by saying that it would even be easier for her if the built items were classified as a single entity with a single cost instead of its component parts. Mr. Bartholomew continued by saying if you ask a contractor for a quote to build 5 buildings, he will give you a price for each of the buildings and not for the individual wooded or concrete components that go to make up the building.

Mr. Wiles asked Mr. Bartholomew if they use a contractor to which he replied, “Sometimes we do.” He continued by saying that he will get to the part where they do not use a contractor “…in a minute or two.” He said that it would be much easier on the applicant and probably easier on Ms. Hodge if the work was grouped by item instead of the items components. Ms. Hodge said that she would not require applicants to do it this way but as long as the costs were capable of being tracked properly, this would be okay. Ms. Hagstrom mentioned that the reason it is done this way is that it mirrors the State application. She continued saying that this is the exact way it is done for State applications and the ECHO Board tries to minimize the differences between their application and that of the State to make it easier for the applicants. Mr. Bartholomew said that this depends on the agency you are going to for a grant. Several different State agencies, including the Land and Water Conservation fund, want items listed as (for example) a restroom and a cost, a pavilion and a cost, etc. Ms. Hagstrom responded by saying that when the contractor gives a price for a restroom or a pavilion, they know the exact amount of cost for lumber, piping, etc.

Mr. Bartholomew said that he also does not like contractor fees. He said that every time a nail is pounded into a board, there is a contractor fee added onto that cost. He continued that the contractor does not tell him how much profit they are making on the bid. The reason is because if they are making $300,000 on a million dollar contract, the next time a bid goes out and returns with a cost of a million dollars, he will tell the contractor that he knows they are making $300,000 and that is too much so they would put the project back out for bid. Mr. Bartholomew linked this to the contractor breaking down their bid to the cost of each type of item. He said there would be pages and pages to describe the bid for this example restroom.

With respect to the owner builder, Mr. Bartholomew said that for phase I work, they did hire a contractor as there was earthwork, storm water, restroom construction and other items. For phase II, there were trails, a pavilion, a playground and other items he felt comfortable with being his own contractor. He said here is how he did it. When he needed a playground, there are companies out there that do nothing but playgrounds. They have all the drawings, bills of material, and known labor costs for the construction of this playground. He then went with a bathroom structure that was a bathroom made out of solid concrete that had complete drawings with it. He had to take these drawings and go to the city to get a permit in the same way that an outside contractor would have to do. He doesn’t want to have to pay a contractor twenty percent on something that he can do himself.

He continued. Regarding the comment about reimbursements where you are the owner contractor, he said that there are times when we have to hire an inspector or we hire someone full time as we have to pay them less than what they would have to pay a contractor to do the job. This pointed out that it isn’t necessarily someone who is already on staff that will be assuming the contractor duties. He said that there are times when a particular full time employee may not have a year around set of duties to accomplish but they can be used to supervise a construction job. He asked that the Board let the cost of this person at least be used as MATCH because that persons cost is real and is specifically tied to the project.

Mr. Wiles said that what the whole discussion was about was regarding the time when an applicant puts contractor fees into the grant and then becomes their own contractor expecting those monies to come to them. Ms. Hodge and Mr. Wiles said that with the new verbiage, what he is asking for will be in the new Application Guide for ECHO.

Lastly, Mr. Bartholomew wanted to bring up the subject of “lien waivers” to which Ms. Hodge said that Board could not make the decision on this subject as this was a County requirement. She commented that she is working on that subject.

Since there was no other comments from any of the visitors, at 5:10 pm, Chair Hargreaves said the meeting was adjourned.